When PF2 hits, first this board will be split up into camps of people excited and loving it versus people who loathe it so badly they vocally refuse to try it but still for some reason continue to post.
Eventually, that will die down, and the board will be taken over by PFS munchkins and their opinions on maximal builds.
Ha hahaha ha.. ha... oh... that made me a little bit sad.
I like it, so I'm going to repost you here. All good ideas, and the weapon capabilities need to be expanded along these lines:
I read a recent post online questioning the validity of the flail as an actual war weapon versus a fantasy weapon. This is a fantasy game, and I have loved the flail ever since I saw Ivanhoe and two full plated knights were beating the heck out of each other with axes and flails. Sweeeeeeet! So I'm going to ignore the historical and go totally fantasy here.
The flail. It does lower damage than other martial weapons. It has a limited damage type - bludgeon. It does the fruitier effects of disarm and trip. It has the sweep special effect.
Balance Analysis: The flail is balanced compared to other weapons. I'm not going to argue it's a gimp weapon or over powered. It has lower damage but additional capabilities.
Fantasy Analysis: What a let down. This is not why I want to wield a flail. I want to be a nasty monster and murderize foes with this thing! The very first game I ever played, I was handed an npc fighter sheet. The guy had been given a lot of weapons. I still remember my eyes lighting up when I read flail, "This guy has a what?!? I WIELD IT!!!"
Problem 1) Damage Type Bludgeon - Most fantasy flails are covered in spikes. I expect my flail to do bludgeon or piercing as needed. It's covered in nasty spikes! It looks awesome! It's failing expectations here.
Problem 2) Disarm and Trip - I'm not wielding this thing to be a fancy technical fighter. I'm wielding it to smash the heck out of people, punch through their armor, make a mess of them! Flail needs its own unique power like Shield Bypass. This should reduce the effectiveness of a shield as the chain can wrap around it to deliver blows. THIS is one of the reasons I wield a flail! To heck with conventional hack and slash. I want nasty, dirty DAMAGE.
Problem 3) Sweep - Sure, the flail is swung around, but once it impacts something, it's done for. It's going to bounce off and... read this closely... FLAIL AROUND! Yes, the verb flail literally means wild and erratic motion:
This is not in line with expectations for making it easier to hit other targets. Sweep is not a fitting effect for a flail.
How the flail looks today: Martial, 1H, 1d6 Bludgeon | Disarm, Sweep, Trip
How I want it to look: Martial, 1H, 1d8 B/P | Shield Bypass
There are crit specials and feats that enhance your blows by moving an opponent 5' or making them flat-footed. There are some higher level feats that let you choose between the two. That higher level option is a good benefit. I would argue that the "options" that don't let you choose are problematic and unwieldy in a game and should be removed in favor of always letting the player select and select direction.
Problem 1) My opponent gets moved 5' away and is no longer in range - Unless you are intentionally doing this to clear a path, you have just gimped yourself as it wastes an action to move 5' towards them to get another attack in. This is not a reward of getting a critical. It's a punishment.
Problem 2) When it's the DM's choice to move an npc or flat-foot them, how do they fairly choose? - If I know my player needs to clear a path, I either have to give it to them knowingly helping them, or I have to choose flat-footed and intentionally thwart them. This is a silly, unfair burden on the game. If I'm flipping a coin, that's a mechanic. Why doesn't the feature resolve the problem itself?
I think the Move or Be Flat-footed "non-choice" mechanic is negative and should be removed, because it is not rewarding as intended and not handled well as a mechanic.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Not to downplay the awesome Precise Debilitations at all, but I'll note that Vicious Debilitations is in most cases even more powerful if you're a ruffian and your party members match your damage type (or you use versatile weapons like swords to ensure a match with, say, the archer's piercing damage), since 5 damage to everyone is going to be more than expected 7 to just you unless you represent around 2/3 of the group's weapon damage or just can't match damage types.
I vote this most glorious run on sentence in the history of the playtest! I'm still trying to cipher it out, but I already know it is great and have therefore cast my vote (despite knowing some may not find it as popular), since waiting isn't as accepted in contests such as these over more waiting unless the vote is postponed by two thirds as many days as are votes or you just don't vote.
I'm sorry for being bad.
Whoa, nice math find on Forceful. I have been discounting it as inconsequential, but adding up the dice and minimums for use with Certain Strike is brilliant. Ignoring what happens with your 1st attack, that's a minimum 53 points of damage that is unstoppable.
To the point of the OP, there are lots of neat rogue builds that look like they do great damage in cool ways. Every time I've built one, I've found a simpler fighter build whose math is superior. Nettah's build is another check for the fighter as the better... well, fighter. That is rightfully so I think.
We know resonance is out, completely. Therefore in our P2 campaign, we have dropped it. No item limits. Magic items powered by resonance handled on a case by case basis reflecting typically how things worked in P1.
Other than that, I think it's totally playable and more fun than P1. We all understand that in a few more months, it will look different, and we're fine with that. Still that's no reason not to enjoy the new dynamics now.
Giving heavy armor resistance is a solid idea. I would base it on proficiency. Every point of proficiency gives you some kind of resistance. I would even be for across the board damage mitigation of all types potentially. Quality/enhancement can impact this, but the idea of "I can reduce damage taken through skill in wielding my armor defensively and proficiently" is cool, believable, and fun.
There are no active choices to make to improve your armor proficiency past trained at all. This is disappointing. There are also no choices to increase your weapon proficiency. [I define choice as a feat or path you select, not the current locked down method which is waiting until you're 13th level and your class or feat progression earns an Expert proficiency or the like. That's fine but not the kind of choice I'm looking for. A comparable choice is the general feat for gaining Trained in light armor for example. I choose it. I get it when I spend the feat.]
Early dev discussions discussed the fighter as having the best weapon proficiencies. Paladins had the best armor proficiency. "That's the dynamic."
Why is this class-locked? And why aren't there options to improve proficiency by choice?
With the introduction of the new shield dynamics, it's fun to get creative with fighter feats around defense. I say "defense," but the only two choices are parry and shield feats. There are zero armor feats. There are zero armor proficiency choices. (The same goes for weapon proficiency choices.) This is a disappointment. A defensive fighter is a perfectly valid concept. Yes, you can play it with shields, but armor is completely overlooked. I can never choose to be an Expert with my chain shirt. I can never gain Mastery with my breastplate. Getting Expert in medium armor at level 17th is a slap in the face. (Side note: The high level delays in simple things fall flat as a game design. Rarely will campaigns reach this level, so you're consigning things that would be cool at a lower level to a nearly unreachable level where it's going to be inconsequential at that point any way.)
In further customizing my warrior, I would like to be able to select feats that give armor bonuses and abilities. Same goes for weapons. The loss of anything resembling P1's Weapon Focus is a disappointment, also. You shouldn't have to take the Fighter archetype and wait until the uncommonly high level of 12 to get any sort of bonus to your weapon skills (as in Expert proficiency). Sacrificing some offensive options to gain defensive ones is a trade some players would like to make, but it isn't available in P2.
Pre-rebuttal to the "yeah, but a fixed to-hit progression makes for an easier to balance game" response: If my player has a +2 hit bonus higher than any other person of her class for her level, I bring balance back by throwing higher level monsters at her and knowing she can handle them. Or I can introduce the occasional scenario where she must use another weapon of lower offensive value. These are GM101 moves that are fun for everyone. Pre-pre-rebuttal to the "well what if I don't have that +2?!? it's not fun for me to watch them have all the fun" response: Ugh, this is so tedious. You don't get to be the best at everything. You pick what you want to be good at and relish it. Don't get hung up over what everyone else can do. It's not a competition. It's a party sport.
Anyway, TLDR - I would like more choices for weapon and armor proficiency and armor feats as well. It's perfectly fine to give Fighters and Paladins weapon and armor proficiency improvements naturally over time, but having custom choices around those is desired.
Interesting. This isn't directly what was looked for since wands don't fall under the Items Worn Limit being discussed, but it's a good hack worth discussing.
It's hard to say how broken the final version will be since we simply don't know anything about wands at this point. Jason Buhlman even brought this up on this week's twitch feed saying what seemed to be that wands were wide open for new interpretations.
Final playtest updates and 1.7 dropped forms of resonance restriction, but how that interacts with wands is unclear. My point here is that the wand as designed in the playtest CRB assumed you had to spend resonance to activate it. That prevented the abuse you're describing.
However, I will give it to you that a 1-verbal-action spell that gives you two to-hit rolls has lots of potential for abuse if left restricted only by gold AND that gold amount was only 2.7gp per cast.
Casters should be looking for exploits like this for short bursts without expecting to do it 10 rounds in a row. For example, having a scroll in hand could let you do the trick round 1, then you could cast it for real round 2 and have a double super accurate couple rounds.
Wands will always take a hand by definition.
The challenge is straightforward. Dig into the PF2 core rulebook's magic item section. Put together a combination of magic items that breaks the game (in or outside the economy, whatever). Justify inclusion of a magic item limit.
The burden of proof is on the system component to exist, not for me to prove it shouldn't simply because it already does exist.
Case in point, the 3 action economy. Does giving a player 3 actions per round break the game? We could argue that, but I haven't seen any discussions here that find it to be a problem. Ok, let's change the premise. Let's propose a 10 action economy where each action is as potent as the current 3 action economy's actions. I can prove the 3-action limit needs to exist, because giving a player 10 actions let's them cast 5 spells or put together ridiculous combinations of movement, attacks, magic item discharges (to avoid MAP), and spells that take out entire groups of foes before the next person gets to take their turn. There, I've justified there needs to be a limit on actions per round.
We had a resonance based magic item restriction system. That system, if it is to exist in some form, needs to justify its existence. The burden of proof is not on me to show it shouldn't exist (which I've actually done by demonstrating there are no combinations of affordable items that break the game and thus require a limit). It's on proponents of the system to demonstrate the reasoning for its existence.
If you want to prove there needs to be a limit, put your evidence on the table to discuss. I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be. I'm trying to understand it for my own group's use or not. I don't see a need currently. I think the easiest way to demonstrate this is to show a game-breaking magic item combo. If you have another way that holds up to scrutiny, feel free to post it.
...I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful...
You have not presented any valid reasons why a limit IS useful or beneficial. In fact your last post was about how Rings of Wizardry could be abused to give spellcasters 50 or 60 spells. That was pointed out to be forbidden by the rules and thus impossible. That's why there is still an open call on this thread for item combinations that say, "Hey, you know what? There are combinations of magic items out there that need some work to prevent them from ruining the game."
So, no, you especially Shinigami02 have not demonstrated a case for a limit on magic items being needed for any reason.
Preventing game breaking was always the goal of having a limit. You don't for example introduce limits on the amount of magic items you can wear for no reason. You do it to prevent the items from being abused to the point they break the game. That's the point of the thread and the first post. If you go back and read it, it's clear. We're not discussing "Should there be a limit or not?" in a void. The context is game breaking.
2) If you are a high-level spell caster you can just use high-level spell slots to make the dispel 100% or 50% at the worst most of the time. And you are right it's "just" one counterspell each turn, but I still think that is a very strong effect. I'm not advocating spending ALL your resources on the rings, but 10-20% of your wealth could still make you pretty resilient to most magic. It's a defensive option so it doesn't "break" the game (in terms of being utterly OP or anything) but it does show that the cost compared to the effect you are gaining is not at all balanced if you only factor in gold. So more than anything with the current list of magic items it breaks the economy more than it "breaks" the game, but to me a completely broken economy is also a broken game.
If you would like to participate in this discussion, it would be more useful to state examples rather than "you can just" or "100% or 50% at the worst most of the time". This is not useful. Here's a non-theoretical example: You are L20 trying to stave off spells from a L23 challenge. You have the same level spell in your ring versus theirs. You have a 35% chance to succeed. Your plan to defend yourself from spells is poor. That goes out of its way to assume you have the spell cast by a fellow L20 person. You could get this to 100% by saying you're facing a low level challenge, but those aren't a threat anyway, so what's the point? It won't break the game to counterspell low level threats. We're talking game-breaking here. It's game breaking if you utterly counter a L23 threat at L20. This example falls way short, and we're only talking about spells, not all magic, not melee, not everything else that comes into play.
...it doesn't "break" the game...
Finally, we agree. Do you have any examples that demonstrate how the game breaks by not having a magic item limit? I've been hunting through the magic item list, and I can't find any so far. Everything has a limit that doesn't stack, doesn't work with other items, or isn't better than options a player already has. It's actually pretty damning of the current list of available magic items. Other than magic weapons being cool, not much else is worth it when you factor the cost in.
I actually couldn't care less about counterspell rings, they're just the item that's been making rounds, and a simple example of a fairly cheap item. As a different point of comparison though, take the Ring of the Ram. For the cost of one Greater Ring of the Ram, you can buy 12 of the Standard quality. Not that you really need 12, just 10 makes it so at one shot a round the first one will come off cooldown by the time you fire the last one. So it winds up being a matter of 3d6 once per minute or 2d6 every round all day.
Ok, here's an example we can discuss.
12 Standard Ring of the Ram - 1960gp total
To analyze this, we have to compare it to what a level 13 character could be doing. A level 12 item is a +3 magic weapon. Let's pick a really average damage die like a d8 for comparison. Every one of her swings with her sword does 4d8. Two swings in one round can do up to 8d8 damage with a critical potential of 16d8. The ring of the ram doesn't do critical damage. We're not even on the same scale of damage, and we haven't even considered that the swordsperson could be swinging three times in a round or even four times in a round with haste (which is a pretty easy effect at level 12 or 13 or whatever level you are imagining at this price range).
Conclusion (IMO): 12 rings of the ram does not break the game.
Or another example: The same 31,000 gold I showed for just selling one of your level 18 items? A Wizard or Arcane Sorcerer could use that same money to get up to 45 more spells of up to 3rd spell level...
I'm not sure I'm following here. Are you talking about what a character could do if they sold a magic item? If so, the economics scale of PF2 is not really what we're evaluating here, but I'm open to discussion if you can clarify what you're trying to demonstrate with this.
Interesting points, Shinigami02. I understand the chart, but I'm trying to also be reasonable from a play perspective. A player is not going to find dozens of counterspell rings. Getting them would take a very long time. I don't think many GMs or groups would sit around facilitating a player selling the magic items they found and devoting all their time to crafting, heavy shopping and traveling to find them, etc. Putting that partially aside, your point is a player at L20 could have more cash. That is fine. I counter that with two points. Please let me know what you think:
1) How are you going to get that many? That's rhetorical. I just don't think it's realistic in this game to get that many without annoying the rest of your fellow players.
2) This is the important piece: How does having 50 or even 100 counterspell rings break the game? As I pointed out in my last post, their effectiveness at this level is very poor (e.g. 35%), they require a reaction so max 1 per round, and spending all of your resources on them isn't going to make you awesome by a long shot. This is the crux of it. It's a ridiculous and poor choice and does not make the case that unlimited magic item slots break the game.
I'm not saying there isn't an example out there that might, but I'm calling for some, and I haven't seen any.
Fundamentally, you've asked a question and then systematically dismissed every single answer given to you. You're not looking for discussion. You're looking for people to agree with you, by changing your criteria to be so vague that no answer can possibly actually meet it.
The criteria are very specific, easy to follow, and contained in the thread title. You are Nettah's second. It's easy to spot from your post stacking on "each other's" threads. Pretty lame.
Because really, if you don't think having 35 rings of Counterspell active simultaneously as opposed to increasing your AC by +1 is a problem, there is no possible thing that will and continuing this discussion is a waste of time.
No, for the price it isn't a problem at all. It's a waste of time. To amass that much wealth to buy those rings, it's reasonable to say it's L20 or higher. At that level, a challenge would be a L23 encounter. Rings of counterspelling aren't automatic. They would give you a 35% chance to disrupt a spell, and they work as a reaction, so you could only use one per round. Two foes casting spells would decimate you. In the meantime, you would have no other magic items or defenses. Any GM looking to challenge you would put a few melees against you to trash you. It's lame you keep bringing this up. It doesn't break the L20 game in the slightest and is not proof an item limit is needed to counter it.
The idea that this is an "unattainable amount of gold" is nonsense. It's clearly attainable, unless increasing your Armor rune is unattainable. They cost the same. This is entirely expected within the standard wealth rules of the game.
I can't understand the point you're trying to make with this. If you use table 11-2 as a guide, then by Paizo's own standards, it's not an expected amount to have at L20.
I (and hopefully others including Paizo) sees the issue with all my 3 examples and why a limit is needed for a better game. If you think all my 3 examples is equally valuable or that the ring of swimming is just as good as the combination of the other 7 rings from your example, then fine you don't need any limitations on magical items in your game.
No, I don't think any of your examples showed a combination that broke the game without an item limit or were relevant to the question of the thread.
I'm legitimately looking for examples that make me think, "Oh yeah, you know if there wasn't an item limit, a player could afford to do... xyz... and that would be ridiculous." If you have an xyz that fits in this question, I would like to hear it. Otherwise, like the rest of you, I'm curious what systems the final rules use, and in the meantime I won't be using a slot or resonance limit.
Also we keep talking about gold restrictions based on individual character level. With no restrictions you also have to wonder about when the whole party piles their magic items on to one character.
This sounds interesting. Rather than throw a theoretical out there and wonder, how about putting together an example? For a party piling all magic items onto one character, the example I would think would need to show that doing so would give their party (not just an individual) an advantage versus using those items in a distributed manner across the party. I would think the action economy alone would make it a weaker option to put all of the items on one character since they can only use 3 actions worth of items at a time whereas a party of 5 could use 15.
The question isn't, "Is 7 rings better than a ring of swimming?" or even "Are 35 rings comparable in price to the (purchase not sale) price of a 15th and 19th level item?"
The question is: Do you have an example of a mix of items you can afford that break the game simply because there is a lack of item limit?
You haven't provided any. I'm open to discussing it. I even put forward two examples with clear pricing and 11-2 comparable costing and estimations of what level you'd have to be to obtain them... and how they suck, not break the game with unfathomable power.
If there's a need for an item limit to prevent something abusible, I've yet to see a single example of it.
Ok then you haven't proven that with a single example. An example would be within a gold piece amount that is reasonably attainable, and the effect would be that it breaks the game.
Or am I missing something? So far the only thing I've seen you (loosely) create an example for is three dozen rings of counterspell which are clearly a horrible option for a player who would have to be over level 20 anyway to possibly afford. I'm sorry, but that's not even close to being game breaking or reasonable.
You don't need an item limit to limit that. In your own example, gold limits it. Have anything else?
The point of this thread is as the title says, questioning whether restrictions on magic items are relevant anymore. Gold takes care of it.
What exactly are you asking or arguing, Nettah? I'm happy to engage, but from what I have seen, you are proving the above point with each example or wandering on a tangent.
True, we're talking right now. Agreed on gold as the strongest limiting factor. Given what we know about the rules as they are now, I think this shows no need for additional limiting factors like 1 magic item per level or whatever the resonance-esque system is.
This exercise could be repeated with many variations, but it should continue to show that gold is a major limiter all on its own.
Still, this thread is an open invitation to prove gold wrong. Where's an example where an attainable amount of gold breaks the game and demonstrates a need for a slot or resonance based limitation system?
Can I abuse magic items by having a ring on all ten fingers?
This one keeps getting brought up, how unlimited rings would automatically break the game. I'm going to try it right now with a mindset of being reasonable, not having unlimited resources.
Ten Cheap Rings - 1600gp - Level:13-14
Mind blowing! Just to get 7 rings and nothing else, you need the average wealth of a level 13-14 character. Someone tell me how this needs an additional limit of #magic items per character via some resonance-like mechanic. Now let's try to break the system with 10 rings:
Ten Uber Rings - 27650gp - Level:L20+
I'm not sure you can afford this even at level 20 given the 11-2 player wealth table. This assumes you have no magic weapon, no magic armor, no wand, no staff, no nothing. Just ten "uber" rings. At L20 if someone hits you with lightning, it will be 100, 200, 300 points? 15 points of resistance is crap. Doing 9d6 with a ring of the ram? That's a joke compared to a magic weapon or spell. Having the chance to dispel (not immunity) 4 specific spells? Meh. Frankly, this list of magic items sucks.
I see no way to abuse even a low number of rings such as 10 in PF2 such that there is a need for a limit on how many magic items can be worn at once.
A 700,000 sp item or 700,000 sp's of items is nonsense. It makes as much sense as a horse sized duck or 1000 duck-sized horses duking it out.
I expect a GM to challenge her players and reward them in a manner befitting everyone's expectations of fun. I don't currently have a plan to use resonance or item limits in my homebrew PF2 world. Open invitation to people who have a real example demonstrating some need for a limit system beyond resources.
Nonsense doesn't count. Investing an obscene amount of money in blocking every spell... as I mentioned, it won't block an axe. That's how that player would get challenged... but I wouldn't advise them to go that far anyway. It would be absurd.
"37 items confuses me." Don't keep 37 items then. Keep what you have a plan to manage and use effectively. That's on you, not the system to tell you not to be ridiculous.
My players have bigger goals than "upgrade my gear with every penny I have!" They want to world-influence and invest in kingdoms. Magic items are not their #1 focus like many people in the PF1 PFS world heavily distorted.
Ah yes, I do have a limit - sensibility. It's one paizo has as well. They reference it as wealth per level. This varies by table, but they have the concept. Why use a limit on top of that?
Why use four lesser rings instead of a standard? Because they don't stack. I've yet to see one example of how magic items need to be limited beyond the wealth concept.
I don't see any problems with it. Why would I introduce a limit? I'm not giving my players that many magic items each. I'm not giving them time or resources to craft or buy that many. I don't have anyone trying to play ridiculously. If you introduce a mechanic or support it, you should have a reason. The burden isn't on me questioning its purpose. The burden is on substantiating it.
You came up with one example that would require 50,000 gold pieces. That's a massive limiting factor. It would give you great temporary spell defense but no defense versus for example a +3 great axe. That's not a realistic example to call for a limit on magic items worn at once.
That's what I'm asking for. How could it be abused? Costing 50k in gold is not abusible in a normal campaign.
There are lots of ways to limit resources in the game. Can you give an example of an item that would cause this problem?
As for if some limit should exist? I think so. Having someone wearing 37 small items for various activate or other effects would slow down play dramatically and likely become optimal if its doable.
Aside from haste, you don't get more than 3 actions per round. I don't see how it could slow down play. Do you have an example?
The "1.7" update mentioned something ambiguous, "Resonance is completely gone," followed by something vague to the effect of, "Except magic item restriction."
It sounded to me like resonance was only going to exist to serve as a limit on how many magic items you could equip at once, a replacement to the slot system of PF1. It may sound that way to me, because my group was already house ruling that in our PF2 campaign, but is that what the rest of you heard and interpreted?
This raises a second question now: Does PF2 even need a system of magic item restriction anymore?
Bonuses don't stack. That already prevents someone with four +1 rings from gaining more than +1. What's the problem with letting someone benefit from four magic rings? They could even be wearing two on the same finger if they fit. How is that different from a belt, a necklace, and two rings? What would be the point of restricting magic item use at all in this system?
Special (art pet peeve) note: Sure, you could wear four magic belts. Why would that be a problem other than looking ridiculous? After all, the monk in the class section of PF1 is wearing SEVEN belts. Yeesh!
The year is coming to a close and with it discussion of the PF2 playtest. This past month has seen the most productive and civil discussion and some of the best updates (unofficial 1.7 from the video stream).
Thank you to all of the folks at Paizo working long days and nights on the new system. I'm confident it will be worth it in the end. Now, go enjoy your holidays and spend some time on yourselves. If you're not taking care of you, who will?
That's not really fair. It sounds like you're searching for reasons to complain. This is the Open playtest. They will still be testing it internally and with focus groups, but they won't be investing in the extra work it takes to share that testing with the entire world.
That's completely fair and reasonable on their part as well as professional. We've been lucky to have had so much interaction with them, so much exposure to where their minds are at this stage, and especially fortunate to have had the opportunity to contribute so much through this forum. Paizo has gone out of their way to put PF2 content in our hands, so much so that I'm able to run a (so far) really fun PF2 campaign with my friends.